Latins had no known name for Kaixias: Quem ab oriente folftitiali excitatum Græci Kamav vocant; apud nos fine nomine eft, fays Seneca, Nat. Quæft. V. 16. Kamias therefore blowing between Aquilo and Eurus, the Roman seamen (for want "of a fpecific word) might exprefs the fame wind by the compound name Euroaquilo; in the fame analogy as the "Greeks call Eupovotos the middle wind between Eurus and "Notus; and as you fay now fouth-eaft and north-east. "Since therefore we have now found that Euroaquilo was the "Roman mariners word for the Greek Kainias; there will foon appear a juft reason why St. Luke calls it

ανεμος τυφωνικός, α tempeftuous wind, vorticofus, a whirling wind; for that's "the peculiar character of Kamias in thofe climates; as appears from several authors, and from that known pro"verbial verfe,

« Ελκων εφ' αυτον ὡς ὁ Καικιας νεφη.

"So that with fubmiffion I think our Luther's and the Danish version have done more right than your English to the "facred text, by tranflating it NORD-OST, north-east: though "according to the present compass divided into XXXII, Euro

aquilo answers nearest to OST-NORD-OST, east-north-east: "which is the very wind that would directly drive the ship "from Crete to the African Syrtis, according to the pilot's "fears, in the 17th verse."

Thus far this learned critic, whofe firft objection to the common and accepted reading I find to be, that the wind Euroclydon was never heard of but here. To this I answer, that I do not think it right to deviate from the original text, and admit of any alteration, merely because a word is new to us. St. Paul was in a fhip of Alexandria, a city that for three centuries had maintained the greatest traffic of any place in the world. As extenfive trade always introduces new terms of art, and distinctions not known before; it is very poffible for them to have had a name for a wind, that might not be cur

rent

rent in Attica or the Peloponnefus. If then there be any thing uncommon in this appellation, there is no occafion to have recourfe to Gellius, or fly to the Poets for authority all may be very right, though not authenticated by them. Several Grecian nations had their particular names for months and festivals; and they might have their feveral diftinctions for weather and for winds. Had not the Athenians their Opviai, Χελιδονίαι, Προδρομοι, Ετησιαι, names not in ufe at Alexandria? why might not the Alexandrians in their turn have terms that were unknown at Athens? But the Doctor has a strange prefumptive notion, that these were Roman failors: and the whole of his argument turns upon it. But this he takes for granted without the leaft foundation. The mariners were doubtlefs Greeks, that had their particular terms and distinctions, which other countries were not acquainted with. Many winds are not denominated from the point they blow from; but from their effects and violence. How many species of winds are there at this day taken notice of by failors, and in common acceptation among those who experience them, that are little known out of the latitude they blow in! We read of Levant winds, Trade winds, Monfoons, Cormantines, Hermatans, and a fuffocating blaft, called a Bloom, on the coaft of Guinea: they have the like fcorching wind in Perfia, called Samael, that comes from the mountains of Sulphur: add to these Tramontanes, Travadoes, Tornadoes, Pupugaios, Summafentas, Terrenos, and the very wind here mentioned, aveμOS TUQWVIXOS, which our failors at this day call a Tuffoon. They are not therefore to be looked for on the mariner's card; nor to be rejected, if they be not in common use and acceptation: for the novelty of a term fhould not neceffarily be an objection to it. The word is uncommon, we grant: but what is it, that we are to fubftitute in its room? Another word equally uncommon. Neither Euroclydon nor Euroaquilo are to be found but in this paffage of the Acts; where one is a various reading

to the other. Euroclydon," fays Dr. Bentley," was never "heard of but here:" he acknowledges prefently afterwards the fame of Euroaquilo. Why does he reject one reading for being fingular, and admit another that is liable to the fame objection? what is it that determines his choice?

εύρος

It feems," Euroclydon is an odd compound, being made up " of and xλudwv, wind and waves: and it appears plainly "à priori from the disparity of those two ideas, that they "could not be joined in one; nor is there another example "of the like compofition." For my part, I can fee no more disparity here, than I do in any other compounds; fuch as γεωργος, χειρεργος, κερκοπίθηκος, ναυπηγος &c: no more inconfiftency between wind and water, than between mill and water, wind and mill, land and water, &c, &c: from whence we have windmill, watermill, windfail; and, though a modern, yet a just compound, the English adjective, Terraqueous. Add to these words of an exact analogy, feabreeze, landbreeze, landgate, feagate, watergate. In all compo

fition of this nature, where there are two substantives, there is ever a verb understood, that connects the two terms: nor can there be any more impropriety in blending wind with water in Euroclydon, than in joining wind with wind in Euroaquilo. It is true, I should have taken the word Euroclydon to have fignified an eastern swell, or a deep fea from the east: but, as the facred writer tells us it was the name of a wind, it certainly implies a wind that makes such a swell from the east; i. e. when taken out of compofition, Eupos xλušwv, an east wind that causes a deep fea or vast inundation.

Thus much to make this reading feazable. But, were it otherwise, what would you fubftitute in it's room? Euroaquilo, say the patrons of the Vulgate. But there was no fuch wind: and, had there been fuch a one, yet it could not be that fpecified here; as I will abundantly prove hereafter.

In the first place, there never was, nor could be, fuch a

wind

wind as Euroaquilo. The learned writer, whofe opinion I am controverting, takes uncommon pains to remove Eurus from the point where it is ever stationed, in order to compound it with a wind that it is really incompatible with. And how does he effect it? by means the most extraordinary: no less than by making Gellius and the Latin poets, whofe authority he does not produce, the best judges to determine the establishment of the Greek winds, in contradiction to the Greeks themselves: all which labour is undertaken to introduce a reading as new and uncommon as that which he repudiates. And, in making use of Roman authority, he confeffedly fets afide the evidence of the best and most respectable writers; and founds his opinion on the report of a fingle perfon, who will at laft turn out a confufed and a fecondhand voucher. But let us attend to his words-" "Tis true,

according to Vitruvius, Seneca, Pliny," (he might have added Varro, Columella, and of the Greeks, who were the best judges, Aristotle, Timofthenes, Bio, Pofidonius, Strabo, &c.) according to the opinion of thefe, "there could be no fuch

wind, nor word, as Euroaquilo: but Eurus is here to be "taken, as Gellius II. 22. and the Latin poets use it, for the "middle æquinoctial eaft."-As to the poets, he does not produce their evidence; nor is it worth producing, they write always fo indeterminately,' and with fuch a latitude. The whole of the argument then refts upon Gellius: let us turn to him, and hear what he fays.

• Ovid fays,

He

Eurus ad Auroram Nabathæaque regna receffit. Metam. 1. 61. That's not much amifs - Virgil places it in the vicinity of the northpole-Septem fubjecta Trioni

Gens effrena virum Riphæo tunditur Euro. Geor. 3. 381.

Can Dr. Bentley imagine that pilots and mariners were guided by fuch authorities? To fpeak the truth, Virgil means by Eurus the wind in general; just as he ufes dura filex for any hard rock, quercus and ilex for any timber. Where he speaks of Eurus as infefting the climate, he just before mentioned the Caurus blowing Semper hiems, femper fpirantes frigora Cauri. The Caurus and Eurus are winds diametrically oppofite.

B

-

He tells us nothing of himself, but only- Favorinus ita fabulatus eft-Being at dinner with one Favorinus, that perfon discoursed at large about the winds, and ran counter to the opinions of the best writers that preceded him. Among other things that he determined, was the place of the wind Eurus; which, as far as we can understand him, he would fain remove from the eastern winter folstice, and make it the fame as the Solanus and Anλwns: that is, instead of the fouth-east, he would place it in the eastern Equinoctial point.2 But this Favorinus is not of fufficient confequence to be oppofed fingly to the group of illuftrious writers before mentioned. He was a Sophift; and does not in the present affair acquit himself with proper precision. The words of his commentator upon this very paffage will give one a just idea what his authority merits: Intricatè hìc loquitur Favorinus; et dubito an feipfum intellexerit; vel per Eurum Euronotum five Vulturnum denotaverit. Sed quid commune Vulturno cum Aquilone? &c. Thus all this laboured evidence vanishes in smoke; and it is the real opinion of his Scholiaft, that the Sophift did not understand himself, any more than

2

Qui ventus igitur ab Oriente verno, id eft, æquinoctiali venit, nominatur Eurus is alio quoque à Græcis nomine annλwτns, à Romanis nauticis Subfolanus cognominatur. Aul. Gell. Lug. Bat. 1666. p. 160. Caurus adverfus Aquilonem flat. Favonius-adverfus Eurum flat. p. 161. Iapygem- eum effe propemodum Caurum exiftimo - videtur adverfus Eurum flare. pag. 163.

-

To

The whole of this differtation in Aulus Gellius is a burlefque upon criticism; the chief fpeaker being fo confufed and inconfiftent. wards the clofe Favorinus tells us, that he was very near giving a long detail of all the winds that blow; " for really," fays he, "I have taken a cup too much,-quia paulo plus adbibi: but it is not fair to have all "the converfation to one's felf." What makes it more ridiculous, is that Gellius affures us, all this was uttered with great elegance of words, and with peculiar grace and addrefs in the delivery - What fignify grace and elegance, without perfpicuity and precifion? Hæc nobis Favorinus in eo quo dixi tempore apud menfam fuam fummâ cum elegantia verborum totiufque fermonis comitate atque gratiâ denarravit. p. 165. Lib. 2. 22.

3